HomeMy WebLinkAboutDepartment Report 03-29-22
10
Carmel Plan Commission
COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE
Tuesday, March 29, 2022 Department Report
5. Docket No. PZ-2022-00001 DP/ADLS: Culver’s.
The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for new Culver’s restaurant. The site is located at 431 E. Carmel
Drive. It is zoned B-8/Business and is not located in any overlay zone. Filed by Bob Goins of K & J Investments
XVL, LLC.
*Updates to the Report are written in blue
Project Overview:
The Petitioner proposes to construct a new restaurant with drive thru where the Rama Car Wash was previously located.
Immediately adjacent to the east is Fazoli’s. West is the Flanner and Buchanan Funeral Home. South of the site is the Post
Office. These surrounding uses are all zoned B-8/Business. North across Carmel Drive is the Hunter’s Glen condo
community, zoned R-4/Residential. Please see the Petitioner’s Information Packet for more details.
UDO Standards this project MEETS:
B-8:
• Permitted Use: Restaurant with walk-up/drive-thru
• Minimum Front Yard setback: 25’ required, 104’ proposed
• Minimum Side Yard setback: 10’ required, 35’ proposed east, 54.4’ proposed west
• Minimum Rear Yard setback: 10’ required, 153.9’ proposed
• Maximum Building Height: 50’ allowed, 23’3” proposed
Article 5:
• Bicycle parking: 3 racks (6 spaces proposed), 2 racks (4 spaces) required
• Dumpster enclosure: matches building design and materials
• Accessory Drive thru canopy: matches building design and materials
UDO Standards NOT MET, therefore Variances are required or adjustments need to be made:
• Parking: 70 spaces required; 46 spaces provided
• Bicycle parking location: within 50’ of front door required, 76’ to patio door (north) and 120’ to the main entry
(west) proposed (Petitioner has stated they will revise the location for bike parking)
• Lot coverage: 60% allowed, 68.3% proposed
• Signage – Number: One sign allowed, two signs proposed (wall and ground)
Site Plan, Parking, and Engineering:
Access to the site will remain as it is today, shared with the Fazoli’s restaurant to the east. There is also a cross access
easement through the Fazoli’s site to AAA Way, which will also remain. Parking will be added along the north property
line and in front of the building. Traffic will flow one way around the site to access the drive thru at the back (south) of
the site. The drive thru will have two lanes that will funnel into one lane as it approaches the pick-up window. Then it will
split off into two areas of pull ahead parking and one through lane for “food runners” to bring out the orders. There are 46
parking spaces proposed on the site. Restaurant with drive thru calls for one space per 80 sq. ft. of floor area. This
building requires 70 spaces; therefore, a variance will be required. The Petitioner still has work to do with the
Engineering Department on detention and water quality for the site. To date no drainage report has been
submitted. Reviews will continue in Project Dox on this item.
Active Transportation:
Carmel Drive has an existing 5’ wide sidewalk along this frontage. However, the Thoroughfare Plan requires a 10’ asphalt
path along Carmel Drive. The Petitioner has the option to either construct the path as required or may work with the
Engineering Dept. on a contribution to the Non-Reverting Thoroughfare Fund in lieu of constructing the path
improvement. Petitioner, please provide an update as to which route you would like to go. The Petitioner plans to
install a new 5’ wide sidewalk to connect the front door to Carmel Drive. Sidewalk is also proposed around the building
and leading back to the order canopy area behind the building. Bicycle parking is shown on the site plan adjacent to
11
Carmel Drive, which is too far away from the front door of the building. The maximum distance allowed is 50’ from the
front door. Petitioner, please revise the bicycle parking location to be in compliance with the UDO.
Architectural Design:
The building design has evolved over the course of this project and is now on the right track, but some modifications are
still needed. Proposed building materials are brick, stone, and EIFS (stucco). Stone pilasters now carry evenly throughout
the facades. Brick is the primary material in-between these pilasters. The same stone is used as a base around the entire
building. Windows are incorporated in the front of the restaurant and faux windows made of EIFS are now proposed on
the back part of the building. The Dept. would like to continue working on this design with the Commercial Committee
and the Petitioner. Instead of EIFS windows, we would prefer to see bricked-in faux windows. EIFS is not desired within
8’ of the ground, and it does not make sense to break up a brick façade with EIFS. Other items of concern are the blue
awnings that carry over these faux windows on the back half of the building. If they do not serve a function for shading
the inside from sun or protection for a pedestrian over a sidewalk, they should not be used. Another item to work on is
where the stone carries up in the center portions of the building on each façade, as well as how the pilaster stops short of
the cornice line. While an accent wall in generally supported, in this case it blends too much with the pilasters.
The drive thru canopy on the back of the site has the same stone for the columns. The roofline could use a little more work
to match the cornice of the building in both coloring and detail. Right now, it is a plain dark gray. The cornice line of the
building is tan with accent projections. The new trash enclosure also matches the building with stone pilasters at the
corners and brick as the main material. It has a dark gray cap as the “cornice.”
Lighting:
As currently proposed, the photometric plan does not meet the 0.3 footcandles at the property line. Six pole lights at 25’
tall are proposed around the site and referenced on the photometric plan. However, a detail of the fixture is not provided.
Other light fixtures detail sheets are included in the Info Packet (assumingly for decorative lighting around the building
and down lights within the canopies), however are not shown on the lighting plan for reference. Petitioner, please work
on providing an up-to-date, compliant lighting plan for review. Please also provide a night-time view of the
building – we want to ensure that no colored lights are proposed or other use of lighting as signage.
Landscaping:
New landscaping will be installed around the site, including building base landscaping, perimeter shrubs, and trees. The
Petitioner has submitted a landscape plan through the Info Packet for the Plan Commission meeting but has not yet
uploaded plans through our online review software, Project Dox. The Petitioner will need to continue working with the
Urban Forester on adjusting the landscape plan as needed to meet the Commercial Landscaping Ordinance
requirements.
Signage:
One main identification sign is allowed for this site as it faces one public street frontage. Two signs are proposed – one
ground sign perpendicular to Carmel Drive and one wall sign facing north towards Carmel Drive. A variance will be
required for the number of signs. The wall sign is 46.7 sq. ft. and is 59% of the height and 50% of the width. Up to 70%
of the spandrel panel height and 85% of the spandrel panel width is allowed. The ground sign is 6’ tall and 35 sq. ft. It
also has manual changeable copy as part of the design, which is allowed. Directional signage will be installed at 3 sq. ft.
and 3’ tall as is allowed by the sign ordinance. A pre-sale menu board is shown adjacent to the drive thru canopy. The size
is 24.6 sq. ft. Petitioner, will this be the only menu sign? Will there be other signage proposed for the canopy such
as height limits, one way, etc.? Lastly, please have the site plan updated to include all signage locations, instead of
on a separate sign plan.
March 15, 2022 Public Hearing Recap:
The Petitioner went over the project details and that a few variances requests will be necessary due to the size of the site.
Drive thru stacking will occur at the side and rear of the new building. They will continue to work with Staff on
outstanding comments. Staff discussed that progress has been made on the design of the building, but more work still
needs to be done – particularly to the faux EIFS windows and awnings on the back of the building. Plan Commission
members had concerns about the shared access drive at the entrance to the site off Carmel Drive, location of the sidewalk